Comparison of the conventional M acintosh laryngoscope, the P entax A irwayscope, and the McG rath MAC video laryngoscope under restricted cervical motion: a manikin study

Aim We compared the utility of the conventional M acintosh laryngoscope, the P entax A irway S cope, and the McG rath MAC video laryngoscope under restricted cervical motion using a manikin. Methods We recruited 36 participants into the simulation study. The manikin's cervical motion was restricted with a cervical collar and a head immobilizer, as occurs in trauma cases. We recorded the time to intubation and the success rate of the intubations. Results Data are medians and ranges. The time to intubation under normal and restricted cervical motion were 22.5 (10–78) and 23 (9–119) s with the M acintosh laryngoscope, 13.5 (5–50) and 14 (7–119) s with the A irway S cope, and 13 (6–32) and 18 (7–80) s with the McG rath MAC video laryngoscope. The differences in the time to intubation between normal and restricted cervical motion were significant only with the McG rath MAC ( P  = 0.0008). With restricted cervical motion, the times to intubation in the A irway S cope attempts were significantly shorter than those in the M acintosh laryngoscope ( P  = 0.0005) and McG rath MAC ( P  = 0.0282) attempts. The success rates under normal and restricted cervical motion were 100% and 80.6% with the M acintosh laryngoscope ( P  = 0.0054), 100% and 100% with the A irway S cope, and 100% and 97.2% with the McG rath MAC , respectively. Conclusion In the present study, the A irway S cope was the best among the three devices. However, the differences between the A irway S cope and the McG rath MAC video laryngoscope may not be serious in a clinical situation. Data were gathered using a manikin, and further studies will be necessary.